Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Commission Packet- May 1, 2001
pp ~~d~8 ~~ ~~5 R ~rgg~~ S C~i~gg$,g; €~Y 7..}y4 ,1qq~1~gg~ $$tt~~ NN C~~ ~ ~? ~f;X1 I":~ttl'.':ili`, (x"~?{?llill~.ti;(?11 1Zi'St?i~_ltlt~,1 I ,~1J. J ~~ I. MI~ETII~C,~ CA GGED 'JE'Q O~~ ~rv s~ ~'11ll('~C 1',iat?i7 ~ ~c"~Ia\' l'I~TI., })i?I] }'Oti~~`;'T L1.GiI~1?A~'11U,~C'17P,3(?Il, ~C,?~ltl ~~Z~,?'C~iS_ l~~~ ~_~i1r,~C 11410 TV. l~~~;t;"~'1'; h. k~.~vie~x- ~~r,~ ~},},r~'~~°a ~f ~~a~°c1~ 2Q, 2401 ~'l~nr~~~~; t~n~ssic~t~ Minutes ~~at°,~' ~ - Cl t'i. "~11?dal; }1Ltli"tll~ ~(} T~" ,'1C\'yF 211 1.1~,iC ~1~Ui7 llll' <l fi'WC3 1Q~ 1~,1~t'; 1~:II"1lil{7Tl ilt ~;~~, ). ~ ~1~ Cis' cnic~ll~g,Y~ay c~"gn A- ,<;l~~ts1~ ~t<i~; 3 72\`' I IT7, ~`~, ~ot I ji)f ~~.iljc~t ~';ti'C'i'l 'i! E7~. 6kIVI4AE'{~ ib; I;.)( ~llt ti Il;dI'1 ~~°~, ~`.~ ~lt~l:ll~ld~ ~\`, t) [ ~1I7111~ Z(?Ilili.` l}1`~i1L~. - 2 Ii. i't~1~1°: 11~~ ti:1°~: iti r~ ~ i~~~r ~ site ~'i11 lf-.)11;~~iir?n i11~it „:~~.Ilt1 <llicl`.~' l;l° ~ ~ ~_< - r . ~I~ ~ Ct3;,tilll;Cilt_lil 01 ~l tlliAC(t 115i` CiC~'i't;?~?l3,iv71t 1.11 l~.t. l'~ii;<l.lt 1): i1C~'l:~ (, x2111:'1 ',c?L,:(tll1 'a1 tit il~tl~~_~~l:~ttc?l~ ~?i, 1 1~iiiill ~,r?i1 t?al` `?trl~'~ ;11 a 11~%il~, } 11 ~'_l ~'1ix 1'~C ;11~:?1ll`~ii /t?11?1)~ 111:,i1'~~t. 1 }1C l,Il?T,~?~lA' i5 1C1C.ltl I'[C'i1 lit t11i; I'CCU'.'li5 ~} thl' ,T<f~l;u>it'~:t~?t~~t} ,~ .>;;SSt7r ~S 3'T ~ `4' it~?C ~', I tip T.~,t: t~}.}(.iU ~.tI~I 't,~t~~J. m:~l (~~yltt°tit ~t, ~l!°i1l~~ltl ~ c:>tl~litit?S r;(`t[~~ P?:il~ll t~~ ~c,11~i:li~~it~;i tll,l,r~~r.t? fi,i ~t?~,~ 11<lZ'i:ll l'~t21.~'`; tilll~ll~~"1~lijil. ~1?L~:11i:211~_\' ~U l~~'t;t>a?titCl~s 111i' ili'21~~21 {?~'~ ~O_t1t)U SC]llai't }{rcal~(~t` ~3tltlll /i`1_:;_ t;[;~?l~~ l~iC llt?I-tl1 j3~lC: t?r [~~t~IIS`t~`d~. ~}lt' ,~i1;jl~~t 1~ruT?~~t~ty i; loc~t~~c1 ~r-r tl~te~ I~-1-`~, IZt:°iil;~Ittia[ ~ist,~l~ I ~xnily z~iiii;'. this{ riC$. Vii, NII.L,A,~'E()t1 City cal' Cexatral Paint Planning Con~missic~n 3/2012001 I. MEETING CALLED TQ C}RDER AT ?.00 P,M. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, l~arolyne Jahnsan, Paul Lunte, Dan Foster and Wayne Riggs were present. .lal~.n LeGros, was absent. Also in attezadance were Tazn Ilumphrey, Planing Directaz; and Matt Samitarc, Plazarzing Teclzz~ician. IIL C4)RRESPQNDENCE There was na correspondence. IV. MINUTES Carnmissianer Lunte made a znatian to approve the minutes from the March 6, 2041 meeting as presented. Commissioner Faster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Johnson, abstained; Fish, yes; Lunte, yes; Foster, yes and Riggs, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VL BUSINESS A. Public meetin to review a site lan a lication at 476 North Front street. The a licant would like to reoccu two buildin s formed o crated as Central Paint Pl and Sales. The businesses bein ro osed are a boat service and re air in one buildin and a wholesale florist a eration with limited retail sales. The sub'ect ra ez is located in the TOD-GC Transit Oriented District-General Camzxzercial zanin district on Ma 372W43DC Tax Lots 11-1 S. --~- Tam I-lunaphray, Planning Director, presented the Planing Depaz•tmerzt Staff Report. Since the time this building closed, it was rezoned as part of the TOD-zoning district. Because of this designation some different requirements are needed in order to recaccupy the building. The applicants must pave all sectiaz~s that are used far parking. Twa additional trees are required an the lot, and three feet of landscape areas need to be added in (rant of each building. There is a considerable amount of right-of way along Highway 99 that either belongs to the City ar to tie State of Orcgan. Once this issue of jurisdictional control is worked out, the applicants will be expected to add a sidewalk and landscape strip to the area contiguous to Highway 9}. Lois DeBenedetti, Building Official, submitted her Building Department Staff Repaz~t. A special inspection will be required far each tenant to work out the requirements of the building Cade. 'I'im Fihn, 1841 Mcl~.ez~zie Drive, stated that he would be doing a sez•vice only type of l~usiztess, and that there is a real need for that here in the Rogue Valley, Ca~nrr-issianer Lunte, made ~ mo#ion to adopt Resolution Nuamber 5.15, approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended canditians of approval. Commissioner Foster secantled the ~notian. ROLL CALLt Mo#ian passed unanimously. l3. Introduction ofthe Draft Conte teal Develo meat flan for Scenic Nei hborhood I-Iotzsin Coznanercial Rezonin and Street Desi nand Im roveznents. The subject ro ernes are located south of Scenic avenue west of North Tenth Street North of Victoria Wa aztd East of Griffin Creek in an area currentl zoned. R-I-B Residential Sin le Famil • R-2 Residential Two Famil and C-I Nei h~borhood Convenience Shappin~ 1VIr. I-Iuznphrey introduced the plan and asked the Commission for suggestions on which of the three options were the best and which the City should pursue. The Commission decided that option. A was the best option to look into more thoroughly. Vll, MISCELLANEfl•E.TS VIII, ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL C.~LL: motion passed unaz~iznously. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 P.M. PLANNING DFP`ARTMLNT STAFF 1tEI'CIRT 1-lEAR1NG DATE: May 1, 2041 TQ; Central Point Planning Coz~z~ission FROM; den Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT; Public Hearing- Tentative Minor Partition for ~'~ 2~V 11 D Tax Lot-174{? O~vnerl Steven James Carr Successor Trustee At~nlican#; 841 Greenleaf Lane Central Point, (JR 97542 A sent; Herbert A, Farber 120 Mistletoe Street Medford, Clregon 97501 Prover Descrip„tiozz/ 37 2W 111=} Tax Lot 1744, 0.42 acres Zoning; R-2, Residential Two-Family District Sz~mznary The applicant is proposing the minor partition of a 0.42 acre parcel into two parcels. The property is located near the intersection of Bursell Road and Greenleaf Lane in the R-2, Residential Two-Family Zoning District. Auflzor~ CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with. the authority to hold a public hearing anti render a decision on any application for a tentative land partition. Notice ofthe public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.460. {Attachment B). Applicable Lafv CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. Tentative Plans CPMC 15.36.010 et seq. Major and Minor Land Partitions CPMC 17.24.010 et seq. R-2, Residential Two-Family District ~..~ i t , DISC11SSion The applicant, Steven Jazrzes t}rz• is req~.zesting that a 0.42 acre parcel at 841 Greenleaf Lane be partitioned into 2 separate parcels of 0.21 acres each(~ttachment ~1). ~.s the Con~:zl~zission may recall, this parcel received a conditional use permit approval two years go to allow two dwellings on a single tax lot. Mrs. Betty Beane who recently passed away, warked with the City to determine adequate setbacks and construct the additional unit on Greenleaf Lane. it was her intention to first obtain the CUP and then perform a land partition at a latex date when her fznanciai situation changed. CPMC 12.24.050 requires that corner lots have a minimum area of 7,0{}0 square Feet and interior lots 6,000 square feet. These area requirements have been rnet by the applicant. Parcel 1 will Dave a 55 foot sight vision triangle at the intersection of Burrell Road and Greenleaf Way as measured fron~z the property line. The vision triangle cotald limit the future development of Parcel 1 if the existing home were replaced. The Planning and Public Works Departments reviewed the previously approved CIJP with the proposed minor land partition in mind and concluded that they comply with city requirements as all conditions ofapproval pertaining to site development, rrzirzirnuzxz lot size, public works standards and specif cations and access to public roadways have be met. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority and Jackson County Fire DistrictNumber Three have been notified ofthis land use action and have nc~t submitted correspondence. Planning Staff has enclosed the comzxzents that were submitted by these agencies during the conditional use permit approval. Since both parcels are developed there are really no outstanding issues that these agencies should be concerned with. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 1#~Iinvr 1'artitic~n CPMC 16.10.010 requires that applications for tentative plans be submitted with _-. izxzprovement plans and other supplerrzentazy information as znay be needed to indicate the development plan. ^ The proposed minor parti#ion satisfies the subdivision requirements lis#ed in CPN.iC 16.36.430 and CPMC 1&.36.040. CPMC 1`7.28.050 establishes minimum. area, width and access requirements for the Rw2, Residential Two-Family district. ~ Parcels 1 and 2 of the proposed par#ition rnee# the area, width and access requirements for the R-2, Residential Twcr-Family Dis#rict. Recozzzrrzezzc3aficzn Staff recommends that the Planning Con~missiozz take one of the following actions: l . Adopt Resolution No.~, approving the Tentative Minor Land Partition of 37 2W l 1D Tax Lot 100 subject to the recommended conditions of approval ~Attaclxznent C}; or 2. Deny the proposed Tentative Minor Land Partition; or 3. Continue the review of the Tentative Minor Land Partition at the discretion of the Cozrzznission. Attachznezzts A. Tentative Plat B. Nance of Public Hearing C. Recoznrzaended Conditiozzs of Approval D. Correspondence from previous CiJP approval '.ry 4~ V ~ N89"55`16"E ' ' " I 30A0 S89 S6 g5 E ~20.fl0 '~ ~ 10.40 ~t]U5~ F+rapassd Fropased 0 AAROEI. Na. Z ~ p,q,gC~ Na. 2 Q 4539 Sq,tt. Q 9t}p S4it. I 34. ~}~ 110.40 C:7 ;n arss ~(~~D5"E 219.59 ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ._ v ~ Greenleaf L..ane ~. ~ ~ f3 3 # m Beall Lane ASSESgDh'5 rtnP nom, }7 1w 2S0 Tt ;7pp LDS .~3 I 1 S}7BQt ~BtWC?t~t'~ t 7`iw'NTA TtVE ~A~~ ~~~r1r1oN tacatea in SOU7H~AST LIUAi~7ER OF SBCTlDN 1,2 7CWNSNIF 37 SCt,tTF~ RANGE 2 WEST WK.LAMETTE f2ERtDtAN, CITY t7F CENTRAL PCINT .1ACKSC3N COUNTY, OR~'GON far STEVEN JAMES C?RR 84,i GREErutEAF CA~v6 CE'tJTRAt RQrsVT. (7REGQN 9750,2 Vlclntty Map Na 5aate 114.00 G7 ~ ~...C3~ ~..~ S Q --- ~~z 910.00 _ ~ _P,C.1.E. }'` t~ __ _~ _~ ~ a~ E i ~~~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a3 E Pine Strut ~a ~'~~, Hopkins ~' `~~ ~; r fro jest ~ Site Beal! Lone Nate, '~pEs property pas been fulEy developed. All utility services are in place and sidewalks installed. pis proposed partitan separates two existing pauses. S{XVCx GYJ by: F`ARBER ~ saNS, aNG, dba ~AR$ER SLk4VEY1NG C.S~,i~ 778-08~t8 OFFICE' LOCAT1pN; htALnVG At3DRE'S5: 12Q Ntt$7t.ETOE P.R 8„>X 52$$ ME`OFtJRU, OREC"i0nd 975D1 GEnlTR.nt POwT. OREGt7:a 9?502 SCAtf: s- . pd~ DA TF'; F[$Ai,JAAY 39 ?a.?S Jas ~.~ aogsz-as ORAifNCi f~,E:.+UB^a\r~ry,tPLOl8A5F_(NtR,FtX ~~. ~.~ v ~~ -~, 'I'ozrz Hizxxzphrey, t~ICF' PIanniz-zg Diz~eclax° Ken Gez~schler G'pznz~nltnzly Plannez° Malt Sazrizlare Piaz~nirzg Technician ~Tatice of ~'ublic ~-Iearing, Date of IVotfce. April 1(1, X001 Meeting Date: Tune: Place: NATURE OF MEETING May 1, 2001 7:00 p.m. {Approximate} Central Paint City Halt 155 Sauth Secand Street Central Paint, Oregon Beginning at the above tune anti place, the Central Paint Planning Conxmission will review an application far a 2 lot Tentative Partition at 841 Greenleaf Way on Map 37 2W 11 T}, Tax Lot 1700. The subject parcel to be subdivided is located an R-2 Residential Two-Fanxily Zone District. The Central Point Planning Caznmission will review the application of Tentative Partition to determine if all of the requirements of the Central point Municipal Cade can be met. If tlxe Cornmission detenxxines that the subdivision can be created, a tentative approval cautd be issued . Once a tentative approval has been issued, the applicant must file far a final plat of tlxe partition m ~:.-. within one year oftlxe Commission's decision. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements far Tentative Subdivisions are set Earth in Chapter 16 of the Central Paint Municipal Cade, relating to General Information,tentative plan approval anal conditions on tentative plan approval, The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's .Public Works Standards. P~t.TBLIC COMMENTS Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decisian nxay submit written comments up until tlxe close of tlxe meeting scheduled far Tuesday, May 1, 24111. 2. Written caznments zna}= be sent in advance of the znec#ing fo Central Poizit City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Paint, CIIZ 975{}2. 3. Issues which may provide the basis far an appeal on the nxa#tez~s shall be raised prior to the expiration afthe comznenf period Hated above. Any tesfimazzy end written commezz#s aboz~t the decisions described above will need to be relafecl to fhe proposal and should be sfated clearly to the Planning Caznmission. 4, Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review of City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Clregon. Copies ofthe same are~available at 15 cents per page. I;or additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541 } 664- 3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY 4F PRC}CEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Coznmissian will review fhe applications, technical staffreporfs, hear testimony froze the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments oz~ the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set Earth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Cozrzznission may approve or dezzy the Tentative Partition. Cify regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ~ iY11...V 1.11\ 155 South Second Street ®Central Poizzt, CITE 97502 !'~ (5 } 664-3321 +~ Fax.: {541} 664-5384 Atfaclznnent "C" PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the Tentative Plan. shall expire in one year on May 1, X002 unless ar€ application for f nal plat or extension has been received by the City. ~. `l'he project must corrtply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3: ~=~~ ~~~ , ~`~?~i~?` 3915 SOU7t1 PACtFIG HWY.. MEDFORO~, OREGUtt 9764f•9099 * (541} 779-4144 • FAX X641} 636.5278 February 26, 1999 Tom Humphrey Planning Department City off' Central Point 1S5 Sauth second Central Point, Oregon 97502 subject: 3344 Burrell Road Partition Meeting -Sewer Service to 37 2W 11 D tl 170{3 Dear Tom, Please have the applicant contact BCVSA regarding connection permit requirements. {fur records indicate a 4" service line was constructed from the GreenleafLane sewer main, in dose proximity to the proposed house, The existing house is connected to the 42" BCVSA interceptor in Burrell Road. lfyou have any additional questions please call m~e at 779-4144. ince,~e~> fr`'f ter` v'^'x'"a /,,/~ames May, Jr. P.~"1. ~ Dzstr~ct Engineer t vz;'~S/9~' 1(I:.IS Ft1X 5418284565 I~I~Zis' ~aIS`I'I2IC'I' #3 I7j01 ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~Z~~~~~ .iIACKS4N COiI,t~`I`Y ~E`IRE 131ST. 3 8333 Agate Rd. White City Or 97503 {541}826-7100 E'ax; {~1} 826-4aS6 '~'o: Tam Humphrey From: Neil Shaw Subject: Pian~ing Ct3M1~"NTS: Fire District #3 has reviewed the fallov~ri~g . Date: Februazy 25, 1999 Pages: I, incIud'zng this cover sheet. 4 ~ South 4th Street If' a fence is ins~taii can the worth property line a 20ft gate wiii be required. for fire department access.. The occupant shall contact Fue District #3 for a fire inspection when buiidix~g is occupied. Subdivision at 586 $eaii Ln. The fire department access shah be marked to prevent parking. Contact Fire District #3 for requia-ements. 3344 Burseii Rd The structure should be addressed off Greenleaf Ln. PLANNING DEPA12T1VtENT STAFF ItEi'URT f1EAR1NG DATE: May 1, 2401 TCl-: Central Point Planning Commission FI2gM: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner SUI33ECT: Public Hearing- Site Plan Review for 3~ 2W 4200, Tax Lots 34401 and 3544 Four t3aks Center Owners W.L. Moore Construction, LLC 1461 East McAndrews Medford, C}regon 97544 Herb Farber 124 Mistletoe Street Medford, tJregon 975{} 1 Dave and Gigi Qrr C/O 1461 East McAndrews Medford, Oregon 9544 Agent Farber Surveying 124 Mistletoe Street Medford, C?regon 97541 Property Descri~tlon! 37 2W 0200, Tax Lot 9444 and 95{}4 - 4,52 acres total. ~onin~: HMR, High Mix Residential Sr~znmarv• The applicants have requested a Site Plan Review for a new mimed use development which is the `~. first one proposed in the City's HMR, High Mix Residential, zoning district. The three story brick buildings planned for construction are intended to compliment historic buildings in the downtown and will house both commercial and residential uses. Authority: CPMC 1.24.450 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and reader a decision on any application for a Site Plan.. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in aceordaz~ce with CPMC 1.24.464 (Attachment "A'>}. „.. ., e7 Ap~licable,Law; CPMC 17.65.010 et seq. - ~'xhihit 13 TC}D Districts and Corridors- HIV1R-I~Iigl~ Mix Residential CPMC 17.64.010 et seq. -Off Street Parking and Loading CPMC 1"7.'72.010 et seq. -Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval Disc~zsslon: The applicants have requested that the Planning Conuz~issian review a site plan application that would allow the construetian afthree buildings within a mixed use development at the earner of C7ak and Fourth streets in the HMR, high Mix Residential zoning district. This is the first "mixed use" project within the City since the area was rezoned by the City Council as a Transit Oriented Development (TOD} District. Mixed use projects have historically been popular throughout Europe and the eastern United States. They are now considered a neatraditianal planning style and we have seen the concept implemented in the Portland metropolitan area. Liven a mixed use classification, various activities such as retail, office or residential activities can occur within a single structure. Ijar example, the first floor of the building may be used as a business while the second or subsequent floors are used for residential purposes. This efficient design typically results in an increased population density and "fuels" the success of business districts. The concept encourages alive-work situation where residents live Glaser to their jobs ar will use alternative modes of transportation. This mixed use development, referred to as Four {yaks Center, has three separate buildings containing office, retail and residential space (see Attachment "B>'}. Building "A"will dedicate the first floor to 2 offices of 1,015 and 1,367 square feet respectively. The second and third floors will contain four split-level residences, three of which are proposed at 1,8'73 square feet with the fourth unit at 1,904 square feet. Building "B"will have commercial space totaling 1,907 square feet with the second and third floors comprised afsplit-level residential units of 1,188,1,252 and 1,286 square feet. Initially Building `C" will consist entirely of residential uses with four three-level dwelling units. Three of the units will be 2,322 square feet while one is 2,336 square feet. The ground Hoar could eventually be converted to commercial uses. Floor plans for each unit vary dependent upon size, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and office configurations, Some afthc units may have fireplaces. ~- =~ The applicants have indicated that suitable tenants for this development are waiting far completion afthis project including V.L. Moore Homes and Farber Surveying who will relocate from offices in Medford. The exterior is proposed to be constructed with a brick finish and synthetic plaster trim see Attaclzznent "C "). Window shapes and sizes vary dependent upon location. The building frontages along C>ak and 4~' Streets will be equipped with metal awnings an the ground Haar. The applicants have cozitezuplated awnings aver other windows and this will be discussed further during the meeting. The Commission will be expected to serve as an ad-hoc architectural review committee as part of the site plan review process. ~~ Parking requirements within the T{)D zoning district require 2~1 spaces which izave been provided by the applicant. In a meeting with the project developers, city staff has been informed that the garages depicted on the site plan will be converted to other uses and that the. off street covered parking will be provided in the rear of the project. The site pian shows 12 on-street diagonal parking spaces along a portion of Oak Street's 80 foot right-ofway. A lighting plan for this project has not yet been submitted, Street lighting is recommended as a condition to approval. Planning staffwould like to work with the applicant to find a standard fixture that would be unique to the downtown. portion of the Tt~D zoning district. The City has been working with the appl icants to decide how alley improvements such as drainage, engineering and paving should be funded. Since the elevation along the rear lot line is lower than tl~e adjoining alleyway, storm drainage would need to be engineered to flow eastward towards an existing storm drain in S`~ Street. Furthermore, the alley would need to be paved when the City makes a determination as to how the improvements should be funded. Currently the alley is one~way traveling from east to west and may need to be reversed in direction as the mixed use development will create sight vision problems at the intersection of the alley with Fourth street. Public Works standards listed in tl~e "Green Book'y require that a 25 foot sight vision triangle be applied at uncontrolled intersections and a SS foot svt be applied at arterial intersections. Given that this is a new concept and that it is desirable to construct the building along the C3ak and Fourth street frontages, Public works staff will evaluate the project and work towards implementing a solution. that facilitates public safety and the development of this parcel. i'ublic Works Department has prepared recommendations for on and off site improvements which are believed to be reasonably related to the proposed development. These include, but are not limited fio; driveway aprons, sidewalk improvements; site grading and drainage; on-site lighting; paving and utility (water, sewer and storm drain} connections {Attachment "E "}. This application did not include a sign plan but it is anticipated that the structure will have wall mounted signs on the south, and west elevations. The TUD district has specific requirements for new signage that tl~e applicants will follow. The Central Point .Building Department will require separate building permits for the signage and has submitted a staff report for consideration by the ,_^ Commission (Attachment "F>'). The Building Department will need geotechnical information and -'.-. four sets of plans for examination. Tom Ivladara Landscaping has prepared a landscaping plan {Attachment "G"~ that includes an automatic irrigation system, a variety of shrubs and trees. Jackson County Fire District Number 3 would like to review a set of blueprints and plot plat from the applicant that shows general information, on-site water storage andJor hydrant location. Fire District Number Three will ask that addressing be prominent to allow identification of each unit during emergencies. 11CP}'C?P£}CtCity WidetPlanningt01t~21.wpc} ~ y Any approval would be subject to the recommendations aa~d connection Pecs required of the BCVSA. There are two sewer and water lines extended to the site where two houses were origi~~ally located. There may be adjustments to system development fees due to the presence of these existing service connections subject to the Public Works Department a~ad BCVSA. Findings afFact c4z. Canclusians of Law• In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section 17.72.[140: A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on tl~e site in suclx a manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme ofthe neighborhood, and in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the maintenance of existing plants or the installation ofnew ones for purposes of screening adjoining property. ^ The site plan slzaws landscaped areas distributed tlzrattghaz~t the project area that satisfy the requirements of the TOD zoning district. B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ Primary access is shown to be taken from the alleyway Iacated at fhe rear afthe parcel. Pedestrian access is proposed to the court yard and upper floors via breeze ways fra~n Oak and Fourth Streets, C. To provide off-street parking anti loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in such. a manner as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The Central Paint TOD Design Requirements and Guidelines require that 24 parking spaces be provided. The applicant has met this requirement with covered parking ~:v. lacated at the rear of the praject. The applicants will also be making an-street improvements in the farm of diagonal parking slang their Oak street frontage. I;}. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from traffic control signs or devices and that they are compatible with the design of their buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ^ Any signage proposed far the praject will require a separate building permit and must meet the ner~v TOD District standards. IIC~'k'37FDC1City Wic]c1Planningt0]p23.w~~~d v <.. ,~ E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fzre fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for tl~e reasonable safety oflife, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; ^ The project, if approved, would need to meet any regczireme~cts of Jackson County Fire District 3. The district will require a set ofblueprints fo review in conjunction with the fire code. The Public Works department has also stated that fl:€e constr~~cticru€ drawings illustrate hydrants, air valves and service connections. P. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; +~ The project as presented by the applicant is in compliance with the requirements of the Central Point l1'.lunicipal Code subject to flee recommended conditions 4f approval {Attachment "H'"). G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. ~- 'This mixed use development is designed fo be aesthetically compatible with the new TC3I) district. The Commission will serve as an architectural review committee and may require design improvements that it believes will improve flee appearance of the project. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one ofthe following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No.~, approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Notice of Public Hearing B. Site Plan C. Structure Elevations D. Sight Vision Triangle from the Public Works "Green Book" E. Public Works Staff Report F. Building Department Staff Report G. Landscaping Plan l~. Planning Department Recommended Conditions ofApproval 1tCPPi3]}T}CtC€ty ~~ide1P€anningl0€02€.rvpd t: ~ Lt ~ ~ ~-# 2. Written conarnents raaay be seat ira advance of tlae raacetirag fo Cezatral 1'oirat City Hall, 155 South Second Sfreet, Central Point, OR 97502. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for ara appeal on tlae znatfcrs shall be raised prior to the expiration oftlae comment period Hated above. Any tesfirnony and written coznzxaerats about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 5ozrtlz Second Streef, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Plamairag I~eparfnaent at {541 664- 3321 ext. 291. SUMMARY fJF PRCICET.~URE At the meeting, the Planning Conaraaission wzll review the. applications, technical staffreports, hear testimony from tine applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on tlae application. Arty testimony or written conazxzezats rnnst be related to tlae criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Plazaraing Commission may approve or deny the Site Plan as submitted. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed aboazt all Planning Commission decisions. ~~ ~ ?: ,a , ~'t .. 155 South Second Street !t Central I'oirat, OR 97502 +~ {541 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ~ ~ ~. M J,~~'~.1.~ ~'dQ .~. z tr3 rn rrt --s n s~sc ""E'a' ~""~ t"> `~i. C ~r~G ~~,sr~~z SIC.+NT LlN~ ~-~"T{~-~.tf lY~ ~~ ~ ~r~tc dr ._.._... 0 0 a a' 0 M1 N4R f~OAD ~, .. NOTE= FOR S#6FiT LtN~ DtS~ANCES d# # dz SE6=Transpartaltaa & 7'roffia Engtneertng Nandbaak, Secand Edtftan ~~ CITY {JF C~NTR~~. PQ~NT' UNtF~CtRNi STANDARDS PUB~..IC `N{~RK~"~C(}NSTRUCTIt~N SIGNT OtSTANC~ at~~ctt~a= c~~-~,- a~~-»c3 too. AC1tfCr'hr ~~s ~~~~bi~ ~ Four Oaks Center May 9s~ 20[71 Page 7 CITY dF CENTRAL PC}INT DEPARTMENT C1F PUBLIC WORKS STAFF RI~PflRT To; Date: Applicant: Agent: Project: Location: Legal; Zoning: Units: Plans: Report By: Purpose Centel Paint Planning Commission May 1st, 2001 Brett & Neel Moore Moore Construction Pour Oaks Center Intersection of Fourth & Oak Streets 372W42CC, 9400 & 9504 NMR, Nigh Mix Residential 16 T Pages "Pour Oaks Center" Public Works Department Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant regarding Public Works standards and proposed new standards to be included in the design. Gather information from the Applicant/Engineer regarding proposed development, General Applicant shall submit to the City`s Public Works Department {City`s PWD~ -;.~- far review and approval, plans and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or modifications within the City ar public rights-of- ways and easements, 2. Public improvements include, but are not limited ta, streets {including sidewalks, curbs and gutters}; storm drainage and sanitary sewer collection and conveyance systems; water distribution system {up to the service meter and including fire pratection~; street lighting; and traffic control devices, street signs and delineation. ~ ~. ,~ Four teaks Center May 7S` 2Q09 Page 2 3. All canstructian of public improvements shall conform to the City`s Public Works Standard Specifications and Details {City PWD Standards} and other special specifications, details, standards, and/or upgrades as may be approved by the City's Public Works Director. 4. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD for approval prior to installation. 5, No construction shall commence until the City PWD has reviewed, approved, and issued a Public Warks permit far the proposed improvements. fa. The Applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the design and installation of the improvements specified an the approved plans. 7. Applicant shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals, and conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited to fJregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFV1/}, Qregon Department of Environmental Quality {DEQ}, Oregon Division of State Lands {DSL}, U.S. Army Carps of Engineers {AC4E}, affected irrigation districts, and Jackson County Road and Park Services Department {JC Roads}. 8. Prior to apprava# and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer ar surveyor shall provide the Public Warks Department with a digital drawing of the construction "as-bunts" in an AutaCAD compatible format. As-built drawings are to be provided to the Gity Which provide "`red-line" changes to final approved construction plans Which identify the locations and or elevations {as appropriate} of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; road alignment; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral stationing; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet locations; street light locations; other below grade utility line locations and depths; etc, Provide a "red-line" hard cagy {on Mylar} of construction 21 Four Qaks Center May 1~` 2001 Page 3 drawings, and an acceptable AutoCAD compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction. 9. As applicabEe the Applicant`s engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a drawing of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced on Itllylar and in an acceptable electronic form in AutoCAD format. The Final Plat shall be tied to a legal Government corner and the Mate Plane Coordinate system. 14. AEI elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. At least one permanent Benchmark shall be provided for the proposed development, the location of which shall be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer's surveyor. 1 1 . All fill placed in the development shall be "engineered fill", and compacted to City standards. All existing concrete, pipe, building materials, structures, clear and grub materials, and other deleterious materials sha11 be removed from the site and either recycled or properly disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the C7regon Department of Environmental Quality. 1 ~. Identify easement dedications and widths on the Plot Plan, 13. Easements for City infrastructure {i.e, sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain} must be a minimum of 16-feet wide, and should not split Cot lines. Easements for storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the Gity and not just a P.U.E. Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five {5} feet from the edge of the easement. 14. All design, construction plans and specifications, and as-built drawings must be prepared to acceptable professional standards. .~ .~: k'our Oaks Center May 1" 2D01 Page 4 7 5. Prior to the City P~1VD final approval of the construction plans for the proposed improvements, the following must be submitted: ^ A copy of written approval from Fire District 3 of the final street and water system improvement plans for the proposed development. ^ The pans relating to the sanitary sewers must be approved in writing by BCVSA, and the appropriate signature blocks must be completed on the plans, ^ As applicable Copies of written approvals andlor permits from the various agencies involved: DSL, DFW, DEQ, and/or ACOF, 16. Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations {i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, street elevations, etc.}, to Which the proposed subdivision will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design. 17, The Applicant's engineer shall provide suitable engineering certification and justification {i.e. calculations, analyses, plots, etc,,} that all connections to existing infrastructure {i.e. street; Water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,} Will not interfere with the effective _, Level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the ",~~. existing infrastructure facilities have adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure. 18. Overhead power limes. Coordinate efforts with Paci€ic Power and Light to convert overhead electrical power facilities to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PV1rD of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and costs associated with the conversion of the electrical power facilities from overhead to underground facilities, shall be by and between Pacific Power and Light and the Developer. ~~ Four C3aks Center May ~$` ,2Qf17 Page 5 Streets/Traffic Existing Improvements 4t~` Street 64RCrW Uak Street 80RtJW -~ Alley{Between 4"' & ~~'' } 1. Construction drawings for this Tentative Plan shall include a Street E"ighting Plan and Traffic Control Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City PWD. The construction drawings shall include clear vision areas designed to meet the City's PWD Standards. 25-foot unobstructed sight triangle areas shall Be required at all uncontrolled intersections. 5B feet shall Be required at arterial intersections, 2, The City's engineering staff or selected engineering consultant Oat Developer's expense}, shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the street section designs in accordance • The applicant shall reconstruct the entire length of the alley way connecting 4~h & Bxn street. The street section and paving depth shall Be a determination of the City`s engineering consultant, * The North side of C}ak Street shall Be reconstructed from 5t~' Street to 4£'' Street. Reconstruction should include overlaying and creation of the proposed parking spaces shown on the applicants site plan, Existing infrastructure adjacent to property shall Be evaluated By City -=`=~ PW© staff andlor engineering consultant to assess the necessity of reconstruction to adhere to standard specifications, Storm Drainage Existing Structure ^ CurB Inlet Corner of 4'" & yak Street} ^ Curb Inlet {South of Alley Entrance on Bt'' Street} 1 v ~.+y~/ Four Qaks Canter May 15` 2t1t71 Page 6 1. Applicant's engineer shall determine how SD system will work during a ~ fl year event, System must be designed to adequately drain 10-year storm without surcharging or must be provided adequate storage to prevent surcharging, 2. Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this Site Plan, the Applicant' engineer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing for SD system, The engineer shall use the rainfall/intensity curve obtained from the City PWD for hydrologic calculations, and the negotiated run-off parameters. 3. The SD system shall be designed to carry runoff from a ~ 4 year storm event if Q ~ 1 flflcfs. use runoff for bC} year storm if Q ~ 1 C74 or C 2C?Ocfs, Use 1 fl0 year storm runoff if Q is > 2QC?cfs. 4. Deed restriction or CC&Rs shall include a covenant or restriction that prohibits the introduction of substances other that storm water, irrigation water, or fresh water into any private or public storm drain system. 5. Hoof drains and under drains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain [fines, and shall drain to the street at the curblinef whenever possible. Lots should be raised if necessary. Building foundation under drains {and these type of facilities only} may drain to private storm drain lines that discharge onto the streets, or into a storm drain curb inlet or manhole only; must be approved before construction by the City PWD, and must be identified and accurately portrayed on as-built drawings, ~ ~~ 6. Storm water run-off from the proposed development into any public SD system shall be minimized and be as approved by the city PWD. Sanitary Sewer ~~ Four LJaks Center May 9S' 2C?(?1 Page 7 1 . All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system {SS System} design, construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Qregon DFQ, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority {SCVSA}. ^ Applicant shall make application for sewer service and construction with SCVSA. A Public Works Permit will be required to construct sewer within the street FiQW, ^ The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of sewer laterals. Water System O 8 inch waterline {4tn Street} ^ 4 inch waterline {Oak Street} 1, Applicant shall provide properly sized service lines to the buildings in accordance with the Qregon State Plumbing Specialty Code. Applicant shall pay any associated costs with up sizing the meter or tap required to serve the buildings, ~2. 1=ach unit sha be served by a separate water meter, 3, Provide construction drawings for the relocation of the fire hydrants. Steamer ports at hydrants located in the complex shall face the buildings. Fire hydrants shall be protected from vehicle damage and encroachment. .. -_ 4. Specifications for the design and construction of the water system shall be in accordance with City PWD Standards. 5, irateral l connection stationing and size shall be provided on construction plans and as-built drawings. ~. Developer shall comply with Qregon Health Division {QHD} and City requirements for backflow prevention. An flHD approved backflow prevention assembly shall be installed immediately downstream of the water meter serving each dwelling unit. ~~ four C3aks Center May 15' 20111 Page 8 7. Construction drawings shall include the size, type, and location of all water mains, hydrants, air valves, service connection, and other appurtenance details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD. 8. All connections to the water supply system must comply with C}Nf~ requirements. Wafter will not be "turned on" by the City until such requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the City's designated inspector. 9. Water system shall be tested in accordance with City PWd Standards and requirements at developer`s expense and must be approved by the City. Site work, Grading and Design, and Utility Plans 1. Applicants shall provide agrading/paving plans} with the construction drawing submittal to the City P.f~. Plan{s} shall illustrate the location and elevations of the base flood event flood zone and flood way of streams in proximity to the development 4if applicable}; curb elevations; finish grades; and building pad and lowest floor elevations. 2. Applicants shall provide the necessary "rough" lot grading to assure that all ~`~~ lots will drain properly to the curb and gutter, or to a drainage system that drains to the curb and gutter. 3, Grading plans must have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and €inal grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour lines must be labeled with elevations. ~. Need to place street lights on plans, with table indicating stationing and ~~ Four Qaks Center May 9$` 2D(7~ Page 9 offsets. 5, Provide City with a utility plan approved by each utility company which reflects all utility crossings, transformer locations, valves, etc. 6. Utility locations must be accurately depicted on the as-built drawings, or as a separate set of drawings attached to the as-built drawings. Rights of Ways/Easements 1 . Applicants shall comply with all existing easement owner requirements regarding any proposed development that may overlap any existing easement. Any development proposed which overlaps ar alters an existing easement must be approved by the easement`s owner in writing, and a copy of that written approval must be submitted to the City P.D. prior to submission of construction plans far City P.D. review and approval. 2. All existing easement locations and those proposed far this development shall be shown on the final plat with reference to the recordation number and Grantee, 2~ C~`~'~'" C~~' ~E~TR~L PC)INT BUILD~~G ~~PAR.'~'MENT STAFF ~E~'d~iT APPLICANT; Name: W.L. Mt7dRE Address: 1461 E. MC ANDREWS RdAD CitylState/Zip; MEDF©RD, dREGQN 97504 AGENT; Name; Address; CitylStatelZip: OWNER OF RECORD; Name; SAME Address; City/StatelZip: PROJECT DESCRIPTION; FdUR QAKS CENTER FOURTH AND QAK STREETS ~. B>I1ILDING DEPARTMENT CfJMMENTS: 1. Building A,B,C, are three separate buildings that will each have it's own specific code analysis. 2. Four sets of plans are required for each building and must be submitted by a licensed architect or engineer (dregan}. 3, Provided to architect at meeting of April 17, is a copy of the plan check list that the Central Point Plans Examiner will use to verify building proposal compliance to the Uniform Building Code (1997 Edition with 1998 ©regon Structural Specialty Code yellow pages}. The plans examining process wil be expedited if items on check list are accurately and comprehensively addressed. 4. The International Mechanical Code {1998 Edition}with C}regon 1999 yellow pages will be used to assess mechanical code compliance, 5. A geotechnical report is required. A written report of the investigation shall include, but not be Limited to the following Lnformatian: A, A plot plan showing the location of a[l test borings and excavations. B. Descriptions and classifications of the materials encountered. C. Elevation of water table (if encountered}. D, Recommendations far foundation type and design criteria including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects of Liquefaction and soil strength and the effects of adjacent loads. E. Expected total and differential settlement, 6. Fill used to support the foundation far any building or structure shall be w. _-- placed in accordance with accepted engineering practice and compacted to a minimum of 95°la relative compaction. A sail investigation report and a report of satisfactory placement of fill acceptable to the building official shall be submitted and approved prior to setting of any concrete foundation forms. Four Oaks Center CENTRAL. POINT Bk11LDING DEPARTMENT By: Da#e: APRIE.. 16, 2001 {~ l ~.:1 Y V ~`1cy~ 1"r. N R P1.8bSltit i Am "" '"""` MttGara ,.~~.-.,.. LandocnFe W,I., A!0(3RE ..,,, ~" . ' CONSTRNGtE01t ~"`"; '^ „~ aw,H„~, ;~ .«~«. aat r. ~+ENERA(NDYFS hl~.~~ Four Oak BGomfkz e::w„ ~a ~C .~ ~.. x.wr..y~..a~....<..w .. ww.~~ w. _ M ~Mrw~~~t*w.vn ~~~ .....nu ~`OCr ' ~M1IWi _ UCtt[Ptn rrnrypy ,•••• >Rft hRi 4 R+LVTHG ~~~+{[ Quantity Common Name Botanical Hams Size ~'ree5 ~ Cherry, Amanogawa 1'runu5 Serrulata'Amanogawa' i 1/2" 3 Hibiscus, Lucy Hibi5GU5 syriacu5 'Lucy' Sga€ ~+ Hornbeam, Franz Fountaine Garpinus betutus 'Franz Fontaine' 1 1/2" ~ Maple, Crimson K#ng Acsr p#atino€dsS'CrirnSOn King' 2'• 12 Psar, Cal€ery, Chantfc]eer Pyrus Gallsryana'Cltant]aleer' 2" 4 P#um, ~"hunderc€aud PrunuS Gerasifera 'Tftundsr Cloud' 11f 2" ~ a~pruGe, A€berta dwarf PiGea glauca'Canica' Bgal aJ11rUb5 9 Abe#ia, Edward Gauchsr Abelia 'Ed>rrard toucher' 2-3ga€ 4 Azalea, Nina Crimson Azalea 'Nina CrlmSan' 1ga# 12 Barberry, GrimSan Pygmy Berberl5 thttnbergi 'Crimson Pygmy' 2-3ga€ ~ C#ematiS, Jackman's's Clsrnatis'Jackmanii' lgal i0 Dayll#y, ante€#a dQra HemeraGaliiS'a~tella D'Ora' iga€ 2 GraSS, Japanese B€ood lmperata Gy€indrica '€Zuhra' lgal ~uyken 3& Hsavenly Bamboo, Gu€fStream Nandina dame5tica 'Gu€f ~trsam' 2-8ga€ 95 i-€olly, Green €5#and €€ex Grenata'Green #Siand' 2-3ga€ 2 Ha##y, Japanese Nelleri ##ex crenata 'Ne€#eri' Bgal `~fl"ly 31 Laursl, Oita Luyken PrunuS lauraceraSUS'Otto Luyken' 2gal ~1~F5~reai~'] 3 Lsatherleaf, Bsdge Carex buchananii 9ga] , ~€~ Oregon ?rape Mahania aqulfalium G`~-3ga# L l~hadodendran, Jsan Marie l:hodadsndran',}ean Marie' Bgaf 5 Rockro5e, Orch€d CiStus purpureuS 2-aga# Ground Cover ~~~ 5trawberry, ~/1#d Fragrarla G#tJ€OenS(5 ~'F"pat ~~" ac rained Un Treili~ 1; Genera3 prspart€an of 51te to inc€uds. A, €~emova€ of a€€ mists€]aneau5 dsbri511J2" or #arger to inG€uds, racks, concrete, a5pha€t GhBr sncauntersd or generated by this work, from job site. __~~°_ B. Eradication of weeds through the csrtifisd app#icatlan of herb]c#des, allow#ng adec~uats time far ki€€. 2. ~ubgrading to 1nGlude> grading of exist€ng 5n€€ and add€tion of any ne5~a5ary tap5al€ to achieve adequate pas#tlve drainage away Pram any Structures and patentia] law spats, and build berms of B„ above curb, Grade all areas to a cans€5tent smooth grade prior top€anting. 3. Sod to be Oregon €;ye Gra55 Blend ar squat. _ loud 4, Sad preparation: A. Bring areas to an even, Smooth grade removing hard or raft areas that m€ght impede drainage ar cause puddling. B. ln5ta#€ a5 per growsr~ recommendations. 5. A€€ Shrub beds to be fin€sh raked to a Smooth condition prior to mulching. ~~. Mulch to be p€aced in a#€ shrub beds to a depth of 3", rt~edium dark bark. 7. Plants #n #ntsriar area in pntS 36"d, 24"d, and 1?"d, Selected by owner, Fi#€ w'stlt potting sail b€end and allow far compaction. #rrigatian provided via drip 5ystsm from park`sng p€anter5. ~~~~~~~ 1. #'€ant materia# to be prnv#ded in accordance with species, suss and quantities indicated be€aw. .fir 2. SubStitut#anS based an availability may be made aS app€iGab#e. c,~ 3.All ptart ho€e5 to be dug 2 times fire valunte of their root ball PLANNING DEPA~2.TlYiENT MElVI0I2ANDUM T3ATE: May 1, 2fI~1 TtJ: Central Paint Planning Commission FRpIVI: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Modifications to conditions imposed. upon New Haven Estates Subdivision Background The Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of a zone change for the New 1-laven Estates subdivision in July 199'7. As part of the recommendation for appravai the Commission stipulated that a 1(1,040 square foot per lot buffer be established on the north side of Rabun Way which the applicants agreed to and supported. The zone change was ultimately approved by the City Council with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Discussion In the process of surveying the final phases of the New Haven Estates subdivision, it was discovered that the properties to the north had fences that extended onto the subdivision property. The neighbors are arguing a case for adverse possession and are at odds with the subdivision owners. Amending the earlier condition for 14,040 square foot buffer lots (numbered 194-198 an Attachment D~ would enable the subdivision owners to proceed with development whether or not they reach agreement with the neighbors. All ofthe property in New Haven Estates subdivision is zoned R-1-8 which requires only 8,400 square ,foot rniniznums. The Planning Commission is being asked to consider modifying their previous recommendation to the City Council reflected in Attachment C, Attachments A. Letter from Farber Surveying dated April 11, 2441 B. Findings of Fact from Richard Stevens Company dated July 1, 1997 C Planning Commission Minutes from July 1, 1997 D. I~Iew Haven Estates Fence Detail North Boundary ...... Farber 8 suns, Inc. I'05t ~3~IC0 ~(1?( ~~$~j Central Polnt. 0(~ 975(32 Otfce:129 Mistletoe Street Medford, Oregon 1541 ~ 776-E)$48 ~ Fax 773-165& Reprstered 4regan Land Surveyt~r, CWRp Land Una Planrrirr~ Gnr~sttliant ~i'~ Surveys T'oprigraptticaC Mapping Land Parlitians wrest Boundarr"es SUbdN1Sl0l~5 Constructi~ri Stakrrt~ Herbert A. Farber President l Sr~rveyar Susan Morgan Farber BtrSin~SS Manager Apri 1 ~. ~. , 2 t3 (} I Tam H~z~nphxey, Planning D~.reci;ar City cif Central Point l5~ Sauth Secand Street Central F'oint, C3regctn 975C}~ Rec Praposed amendment to the Approval of New Haven Estates_ Tam, In July 197 the Planning Coms~tission approved c~ 2ane change fax the project property to F~-1-8. In November of 1997 the tentative plan was approved. Through. this prbeess New Hasten Estates stipulated to lats sized to the R-2-~1~3 standard along the north boundary oa' this project, the Wirth boundary of the City which is also the urban Grnwth Boundary, the purpose of this was tc~ provide same larger fats to interface with the county zarre lands tc~ the nax~th. New Haven Estates complies with this :and has illustrated such on all maps following this approval. At this paint in tixae there zs na l,ntenszve agricultural, use along this north boundary, The present use consists of m~.nimal grazri~g of animals on 5 tc~ 1Q acre pa~Gels _ The lands are nptr irrigated pastures or orcha.rds~ The title Lanes where surveyed in 1996 as well as a.ll fence lines and other improvements. The fence line along the nr~rth boundary va.xies in straightness and tends to wander to the south fra~n the deed lines a.s you too from east to west. This wandering begins in earnest abcaut mad way along the north boundary. The appearance of the fence led me to believe that it was a fence of conveni.erzce and not a property fence. l was in error.. The cawnexs of the property to the Wirth ~~ ~~ are identified by the county assessment records try be, ~oxrn west to east, Jane L Taylor Map No, 362W3CC 'fax Lot 24{30, Nellie J Weide max Lot 2300 and Ft~chard Lynn Scs.ggs Tax Lot 2C10~3. A review of all of the duds znc~~..cates that there is nc~ discrepancy in the deeds between .~~.~- parties . The prab~.em ~,a.es zn the lc~cat~.an of the .fence relative to the deed lines. 'these adj Diners are mak~.ng a Claim to the .land between the fence anr~ the tit~.e ~.~.ne. New Haven .Estates a.s seeking approval to have the ~'ianriing Commission grant relied to the stipulated lot sizes as illustrated on the accompany~.ng map. 'his creates some Lots, which will. be shorter front to back, but still in compliance with the zz~in~.rnum zoning requirements for the R--1-8 zone. The et~'ect off' the bu~~er will rema~.n the same. as the subdivision will retain the same configuratz~an o~ streets and .lots. ~'he resu~.ting lots will st~.ll con~vrm to the goals c~~ the orig~.nal approval. . We are in the process cat constructl.ng the final `phases of this suhdl.vision. Time ,zs l..mg4rtant. therefore New Haven Estates ~cequest that this issue be brought before the ~Zanninc~ cflis~ion at the next available meeting. Respect.~ully 5~.~,br~"itted,' Herbert A Farber, .Agent for New Haven Estates CC; fey Writ Properties Van Wey Horner Fobs ~centra.l. pc~z.nt~haven64cep fence apri]. 1.1 , doc ~~ BEF{JRE 'THE PL~3~7NING C4MMIS5IUN AND CITY GUUNCIL FUR `IHE CSTY OF CENTRAL PC3INT~ (1REGCJN: IN THE MATTER 4F AN APPLICATIQN FaR A ) } CHANGE ZN ZUNING UESIGNATIQN ~'OR 38a= } } ACRES {3~ 2W 3fiC, TAX LUIS 25flfl, 25fl1 } . } AND 26flfl: VanWey Hodes, Applicant; } } Th+s Richard Stevens rCompany, LLC, } } Agent } I . 13ACKGRC}UND : SUPPLEMENTAT, FINDINGS FILE ZC ,. t?n January 9, 1997, an application was filed with the City of Central Point for a change in zoning on approximately 38 acres of land located .north of the curve where Hamrick Road becomes.Wes~ Vitas Read, which was annexed in November of x.997. The application ultimately then. included a r-equest for .a change in zoning on two parcels {Tax Lots 25fl1 and 26flfl} that are currently proposed for annexation to the City, raising the total area for the ~one~change to be approximately 55.58 acres. Qver the ensuing six months since the application was submitted, the applicant has become involved in a project to "Master plan" the northeastern quadrant in conjunction with several .___ other davelapers. As part of that process, it was recently ~=:~~ determined that a Zoning designation that provided for rciinimum parcel sues of 8 , C7flfl square feet { R--1--8 } as opposed to the requested R--1.--6, would be preferable in terms of cost, design, liveability and construction. Farber Surveying has been charged with the design and layout of the subdivision, and has prepared a revised plat. which reflects the R~-1.w8 density. This re-design has proven more acceptable to the other ,developers~in terms of overall layout and design, and appears to have significant benefits in terms of liveability and cost effectiveness. ~ ~ ~~ Additionallyr a review of the Staff Report generated for the application indicates that the Staff noted that the original R--1--~,C? designation was to "...serve as a buffer and transiti©n area between small acreage rv~ral residential properties,...and the higher density single family residential zones to the east and south." (Staff report, P. 7, packet) Staff also commented that the application should be " ..carefully weighed against the infant of the present R~~.--1fl zoning : to provide a large--lot buffer and transition area..,'" and, „...staff finds» , .the R-~.-lfl xonzng should be retained for at least a portion of the ,property abutting the Urban Grocath Boundary to the north." Staff also noted that Central Point East has an average lot size well over 8,t?{}4 square feet, and that is indicative of surrounding uses in the vicinity. xs. AM~rmrs~~. The applicants, after reviewing the character aE the developments that have been proposed in the vicinity for the past six months, and reviewing Costs, market ahal~rsis; liveability .issues, and related factors, feel that an amendment to the application is in order. The applicants wish to amend the findings of fact submitted with the application, to wit: "The findings submitted to the City of Central Point, _.._. dated January 9, 199?, support~.ng a change in zoning designation for '~. 365, R 2W, Section 36, Tax sots 250th, 250. and 2600, be amended as followsz Everywhere in the findings, i~t their entirety, where the proposed change to R.~-~.--6 is noted, the requested change be amended to read "from R-3.--10 to R-~.-B" . c~ ~° ~~~, SUMT~i'ARY ANU GQNCLUSI4N: Based upon the concerns in the 5taf~ Reportr the N~asterplan concept for the area, and the evolution a~ the development in the immedz.ate vicinity, the applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission and City Council approve a change in caning Designation from R-1-1Q to R-~1~8 {$,444 square foot minimum parcel sire}, consistent with the amended findings as noted above. Also, in concert with the staff recommendation the applicant will stipulate to a condition of thc.~ane Change that will require the plat for the property to reflect 1.4,444 square foot lots along the Urban Growth Bounda~cy as 3.t lies to the north of the sub,~ect properties. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 1ST DAY t)F JULY, 1997: t~ '1'HE RICHARD STEVSNS CCIMPANY, LLC J. Michael LaNier ~~ City o€ Cents! Point Planning Commission Minutes July 1, 1997 -Page 2 r~ Commissioner Rapp asked that staff consider having the applicant put in underground utilities. E.ee Brennan stated that the subject properties are an established area and staff wilt have to review the ordinance concerning underground utilities. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of - Street Vacation a#fecting certain alleys and sections of Amy Street, Manzanita Street and Taylor Road {Steve Rietmann, applicant} including alt conditions of std## reports, Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gilkey, RC?LL CALL: Fish, yes; Gilkey, Yes; Johnson, yes; Rapp, yes. B. WlLJ.~.Li=-1-1•a~}L/ 51~.~L 1.LSf Lin Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning department Staff Report. He also added the applicants supplemental Findings of Fact which changed the requested zone change #rom R-1-10 to R-1-8 {8,{~C?Q sq. ft. minimum tots}. Mike LaNier, 336 West 6th St., Medford, agent for the applicant, stated that the owners of the tentative #uture mobil home park, the owners of Central Point East, and the owners of this application have agreed to go together and create a Master Plan for the area. He stated that the two street stubs to the north shown on the plans will not be put in. There is a error on page t'l, paragraph #2, next to last sentence in the Findings of -Fact in the packet; the word "toward" should be changed to "away from". He stated that if the commission changes the zoning to R-'I-8 the applicant will stipulate that the most northern row of properties will have a minimum lot size of 1 C1,C1flQ square feet. Commissioner Fish suggested that there be a stipulation that there wilt be no complaints #rom the owners of the properties about the rural areas or the animals. ~~ fi F City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July # , 199? -Page 3 Mr. LaNier stated that it will not be a problem to do that, Jackson County uses a standard covenant which protects the "right to farm" and addresses the Issue of rural and urban uses. Herb Farber, 12fl Mistletoe, Medford, project surveyor for the applicant, stated that the total layout for the R-1-8 zone is 213 lots, less than the 22 that fall in the triangle area, leaving a total of 171 lots out of the 58 acres. Ne stated that #here will be deed restrictions that run with the land rather than covenants. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to recommend approval of a Zane Change from R-1-10, Residential Single-Family {10,C?Cl4 s,f,} to R-1-$,~ Residential Single-Family {8,4flfl s,f.}. {36 2W 36C Tax Lots 254, 25fl1, & 28(3C?} {Van Wey Names, applicant}, referencing the Supplemental Findings of Fact, vtirith the:R=:3=-1d buffer zone. including staff comments and conditions in the Staff Reports. Commissioner Rapp seconded the motion. ROI_l, CALL.: Fish, yes; Gilkey, Yes; Johnson, yes; Rapp Yes. Chairman Piland declared a recess at 8.27 p,m, Chairman Piland called the meeting back to order at 8;32 p,m, C. t~~am~~ C Governor at~olicatlt~ There were no conflicts of interest or ex-parts communications, -..~. Chairman Piland opened the public hearing. Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. Lee Brennan reviewed the Public Works Staff Report, Herb Farber, 12fl Mistletoe, Medford, representative of the applicant came forward on behalf of the application. Chairman Piland closed the public hearing. V ~~~~~ ~`~~ ~~ 1~y ~ ~ ~ ~~~ l~ ~ ~6~~~6~ i~ ~.oa~ ~~. ~~~~ Rich3~ ~ won E~~ 362w35G ~~ ~~~, ~,7~1 ~Cl. 24~fl ~u'111~ ,~ ~#~tr~9 ~[~Gl"1 (pOt1 Q ~~~~t3~t~ ~t3i3itt~ ~ ~~~~. ~Ol,#~~t ~D ~~f1CiPi ,}Q1~~~ ~- ~{3~OC 451 ~j;~8C3t~ ~~ (~,t,~ ~~.' 497 ~1~5~}n ~'~ 4,4 {~,. 9Q8 S4~ft. ~ ft.9~~1 ~~ 9958 Sc1.ft OQSt~ Sq,Ft > ~~~~ ~q.ft.. 2737 ~1• g~37 5,1•fit ~{~T 2~1 15.3 ~t X578 S~I.Et Lq~' '~~~ ~~~ 198 94x2 ~~~ ~~.~ ~, r 1wC?7 t81 9Q43 5q.fit ~~~ ~ ~,~ 1,QT 1g~. t~C~7 1~J5 ~~ g1,37 81.37 ....~.~---,..~.-....... 867 ~~~ 3221 `~ g1.37 X1,37 ~~ `1-~~ ~ 3f~.. ft ~~~- 192 8698 ~~ 91.37 91,37 ~ABUN ~¢~Y ~ 91.37 78,57 75.57 ~ 91.37 433,28 55.fiC3 75.75 75,75 1'~8.0~ 75,75 LC~7 181 ~~~' 185 L.~~' 184 ~~-~ 183 ~p~' 182 ~' ~~}~' 188 LC}~ 1&7 t,.0'~ '186 ~~~ ~,~ 5cat~ Ma' ~ .~ ~.,°~r ~^ ~~r~~{ ~""' }}F_F"` ~ sew Y'" w^d ~ _ ,a ~. ~`~-~ ~... ~.. ,;, a S